4.6 Article

Limits on additional planetary companions to OGLE 2005-BLG-390L

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 483, 期 1, 页码 317-324

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077449

关键词

stars : planetary systems; gravitational lensing

资金

  1. Science and Technology Facilities Council [PP/D000890/1, PP/E001149/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. STFC [PP/D000890/1, PP/E001149/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. We investigate constraints on additional planets orbiting the distant M-dwarf star OGLE 2005-BLG-390L, around which photometric microlensing data has revealed the existence of the sub-Neptune-mass planet OGLE 2005-BLG-390Lb. We specifically aim to study potential Jovian companions and compare our findings with predictions from core-accretion and disc-instability models of planet formation. We also obtain an estimate of the detection probability for sub-Neptune mass planets similar to OGLE 2005-BLG 390Lb using a simplified simulation of a microlensing experiment. Methods. We compute the efficiency of our photometric data for detecting additional planets around OGLE 2005-BLG-390L, as a function of the microlensing model parameters and convert it into a function of the orbital axis and planet mass by means of an adopted model of the Milky Way. Results. We find that more than 50% of potential planets with a mass in excess of 1 M(J) between 1.1 and 2.3 AU around OGLE 2005-BLG-390L would have revealed their existence, whereas for gas giants above 3 MJ in orbits between 1.5 and 2.2 AU, the detection efficiency reaches 70%; however, no such companion was observed. Our photometric microlensing data therefore do not contradict the existence of gas giant planets at any separation orbiting OGLE 2005-BLG-390L. Furthermore we find a detection probability for an OGLE 2005-BLG-390Lb-like planet of around 2-5%. In agreement with current planet formation theories, this quantitatively supports the prediction that sub-Neptune mass planets are common around low-mass stars.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据